Notes for lines 0-1017 ed. Bernice W. Kliman
51-52 Mar. Peace, breake thee of, <Enter the Ghost.> | looke where it comes againe.
1736 Stubbs
Stubbs
51 Enter Ghost]
Stubbs (1736, pp. 8, 24-5): <p. 8> “Here it is certain, nothing be better tim’d than the Entrance of this Spectre; for he comes in and convinces
Horatio, to save
Marcellus the Trouble of repeating the whole Story, which would have been tiresome to the Spectators, as these Gentlemen were obliged soon after to relate the Whole to Prince
Hamlet.” </p. 8>
Later (pp. 24-5), he says, <p.24 > “I shall conclude what I have to say on this Scene, with observing, that I do not know any Tragedy, ancient or modern, in any Nation, where the Whole is made to turn to naturally and so justly upon such a supernatural Appearance as this is; nor do I know of any Piece whatsoever, where a Spectre is introduced with so much Majesty, such an Air of Probability, and where such an Apparition is manag’d with so much Dignity and Art; in short, which so little revolts the Judgment and Belief of the Spectators. Nor have I ever met in all my Reading, with a Scene in any Tragedy, which creates so much Awe, </p.24> <p.25> and serious Attention as this does, and which raises such a Multiplicity of the most exalted Sentiments. It is certain, our Author excell’d in this kind of Writing, as has been more than once observed by several Writers, and no ne ever before or since his Time, could ever bring Inhabitants of another World upon the Stage, without making them ridiculous and too shocking to Men’s Understandings.” </p. 25>
1746 Upton
Upton: AEnead
51 Upton (1746, p. 60): “With what art does the poet break off, just as he raises the curiosity of the audience; and thus avoids a longcircumstantial narration? Let any one compare the scornful silence of Dido’s ghost to Aeneas, the sullen silence of Ajax to Ullyuses, with the majestic silence of Hamlet’s ghost, which occasions so much terror and wonder; tho’ all are highly beautiful, yet considering time and circumstances, our poet will appear ti the greatest advantage. The centinels break the matter with all it’s particularities, to give it and give it an air of probability to the prince . . . .”
1749 Fielding Tom Jones
Fielding: Partridge at the play
51 Enter Ghost] Fielding (1749, apud Williamson, p. 8): As soon as the play, which was Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, began, Partridge was all attention, nor did he break silence till the entrance of the ghost; upon which he asked Jones: ’What man that was in the strange dress; something,’ said hem ’like what I have seen in a picture. Sure it’s not armour, is it?’ Jones answered: ’That is the ghost.’ To which Partridge replied with a smile: ’Persuade me to that, sir, if you can. Though I can’t say I ever actually saw a ghost in my life, yet I am certain I should know one if I saw him better than that comes to. No, no, sir; ghosts don’t appear in such dresses as that neither.’ In this mistake, which caused much laughter in the neighborhood of Partridge, he was suffered to continue till the scene between the ghost and Hamlet . . . ." Ed. note: See CN 624 for Partridge’s reaction to Garrick’s acting.
1773 gent1
gent
51 Enter Ghost] Gentleman (ed. 1773): “If criticism or common sense can forgive the idea of a Ghost, this of Hamlet’s father lays the foremost claims to pardon and praise; it should be figured above the middle size, and uttered by a round deep mellow voice; the mode of expression rather pompous, to mark a supernatural Being.”
1774 gent2
gent
51 Enter Ghost] Gentleman (ed. 1774): “As far as the idea and appearance of a ghost is allowable in the Drama, this of Hamlet’s father lays the foremost claim to indulgence. The performer should be a person above the middle size, and possessed of a solid, deep, and mellow voice.”
1779 Mason
Mason
51 Enter Ghost] Mason (1779, Massenger 1:180): “the supernatural Agents that are introduced [by Massinger and Decker] to bring them [i.e. unnatural incidents] about, assuming merely the characters of men, are destitute of the Singularity, Wildness, and Fancy, which renders those fictitious Beings so enchanting, which are raised by the magical Pen of Shakespeare . . . .”
Ed. note: John Monck Mason, ed. of Massinger. Folger PR2700 1779 Cage. See Gifford, below.
1784 Davies
Davies ≈ Stubbs without attribution
51 Enter Ghost] Davies (1784, 3:23): “—When the Ghost is first announced by the centinels, our expectation is mightily raised; his appearance strikes with awe.”
1805 Gifford
Gifford: Mason
51 Enter Ghost] Gifford (1805, 1:118-9), in a note on
The Virgin-Martyr, <n> <p.118> criticizes Mason who injudiciously deprecated Massinger’s supernatural beings as “destitute of the singularity and wildness which distinguish the fictitious beings of Shakspeare. . . </p.118> <p. 119> Shakspeare,” says Gifford, “has no angels or devils; his wonderful judgment, perhaps, instructed him to avoid such intractable machinery. With fairies and spirits he might wanton in the regions of fancy, but the character of a heavenly messenger was of too sacred a nature for
wildness and
singularity, and that of a fiend too horrible for the sportiveness of imagination.” </p.119> </n>
1818 Coleridge
Coleridge
52-6 Coleridge (1818, Lectures, 2:140): “‘Peace, break thee off!—look where it comes again!’ The judgement in having two of the persons present who had as having seen it twice before—hence naturally confirming their former opinions—while the Sceptic is silent—and after twice been addressed by his friends, answers with two hasty syllables—Most like—and confession of horror—”
-1819 Coleridge
Coleridge
52-6 Coleridge (
apud H. Coleridge, 1836, pp. 212-13): <p. 212>“Note the judgment displayed in having the two persons present, who, as having seen the Ghost before, are naturally eager in confirming their former opinions,—whilst the sceptic is silent, and after having been twice addressed </p. 212 ><p. 213> by his friends, answers with two hasty syllables—‘Most like,’—and a confession of horror: ‘—It harrows me with fear and wonder.’ O heaven! words are wasted on those who feel, and to those who do not feel, the exquisite judgment of Shakspeare in this scene, what can be said?—Hume himself could not have had faith in this Ghost dramatically, let his anti-ghostism have been as strong as Samson against other ghosts less powerfully raised.” </p. 213>
1877 v1877
v1877≈ Coleridge
52-5 Coleridge (apud ed. 1877): “Note the judgement displayed in having the two persons present, who, as having seen the Ghost before, are naturally eager in confirming their former opinions,—whilst the skeptic is silent, and, after having been twice addressed by his friends, answers with two hasty syllables,—‘Most like,’—and a confession of horror. O heaven! words are wasted on those who feel, and to those who do not feel, the exquisite judgment of Sh. in this scene, what can be said? Hume himself could not but have had faith in this Ghost dramatically, let his anti-ghostism have been as strong as Samson against other ghosts less powerfully raised.”
1853 Collier
51 Enter Ghost]
Collier (1853, p. 418): “The printed stage-directions in this tragedy are more numerous than in many others, so that fewer remain to be supplied in manuscript. Sometimes, where they are not new, additions are made to them: thus, when we have
Enter the Ghost, the word
armed is written in parenthesis, to show what was his appearance in this scene; . . . ”
[The note continues with 3.4 “afterwards, we shall find that when the Ghost makes his visit to Hamlet and his mother in the closet scene (p. 289), he is described in manuscript as unarmed, though we are not told, as in the quarto, 1603, that he is ‘in his night gown.” Perhaps, in consistency with what Hamlet says, he was there supposed to be ‘in his habit as he lived’ and when the drama was represented before the old corrector it may have been the custom of the theatre that the Ghost should come before the audience, not ‘in his night gown,’ but in his ordinary apparel.” Placed in doc. to send to Nick.
Ed. note: The “old corrector” is Collier’s name for mcol1, the author of ms. notes in The Perkins F2 Folio, who is likely to be Collier himself. See Freeman and Freeman.
1858 col3
col3 ≈ Collier
51 Enter Ghost] Collier (ed. 1858): “‘Armed’ is added in the corr. fo. 1632, perhaps needlessly; but see [3.4].”
1866 cam1
cam1: mcol1
51 Clark & Wright (ed. 1866): “This [Enter Ghost (armed)] and other emendations of the MS. corrector, not recorded by Mr. Collier, are given on the authority of Mr. Hamilton (An Enquiry into the Genuineness of the MS. Corrections in Mr. J. Payne Collier’s annotated Shakespeare, pp. 34-85).”
1870 Abbott
Abbott
51 break thee off] Abbott (§ 212): “Thee for thou. verbs followed by thee instead of thou have been called reflexive. But though ‘haste thee,’ and some other phrases with verbs of motion may be thus explained, and verbs were often thus used in E. E., it is probable that ‘look thee,’ ‘hark thee,’ are to be explained by euphonic reasons. Thee, thus used, follows imperatives which, being themselves emphatic, require an unemphatic pronoun. The Elizabethans reduced thou to thee. We have gone further, and rejected it altogether.”
Abbott
51 break thee off] Abbott (§ 205): “For reasons of euphony also the ponderous thou is often ungrammatically replaced by thee [. . . ]. This is particularly the case in questions and requests, where, the pronoun being especially unemphatic, thou is especially objectionable.”
1874 Corson
Corson: F1, cam1
52 Corson (1874, p. 9)
1880 meik
meik= Abbott § 212
51 break thee off]
1880 meik
meik = Coleridge
52-5
1891 dtn1
dtn1
51 Deighton (ed. 1891): “cease speaking; see [n. 11].”
1903 rlf3
rlf3: Abbott § 212 without attribution
51 thee]
1904 Anders
Anders, p. 113, ref. to 36
51 Enter Ghost] Anders (1904, rpt. 1965, p. 36), after quoting Greene’s Menaphon, continues: “The Hamlet Tragedy, as we have it, still bears marks of Senecan influence. The appearance of the Ghost crying for Revenge [but Ham.’s ghost does not] is due to the Roman tragedian. Madness, murder, the guilty wife are all motifs which pervade the drama of Seneca; but they are also present, or fore-shadowed, in Saxo-Belleforest.”
1927 Lawrence
Lawrence
51 Lawrence (1927, p. 106): The ghost must appear before the three seated men, having risen from a trap.
1929 trav
trav ≈ Abbott § 212 +
51 break thee off]
Travers (ed. 1929): “under influence also of the
reflexive “thee”; cp. “get thee,” [11]. In 11, he refers to Abbott § 212 on
thee instead of
thou in imperatives and to § 205.
1938 parc
parc
51 of] Parrott & Craig (ed. 1938): “a common Elizabethan spelling for off.”
1962 mCraig
mCraig
51-2 Craig (1962-63, Box 3, ƒ B5, p. 80) thinks that the men are pleased the ghost has come, corroborating their account.
1962 Beckerman
Beckerman
51 Beckerman (1962, pp. 201-2), <p. 201> citing the stalk [64, 82] and other clues, doubts that a trapdoor was involved in the ghost’s entrance </p. 201> <p.202> Instead it appears that the ghost entered and exited from doors. </p. 202>
1980 pen2
pen2: standard
51 Spencer (ed. 1980) believes that the cellarage scene shows that it “would almost certainly” have entered and exited through the trap-door. He lists a number of implicit SDs in 1.2 and 1.4 that attest to its appearance, demeanor and gait.
1982 ard2
ard2: Greene, Chapman and Jonson; Lawrence; Sprague; xrefs
51 Jenkins (ed. 1982): “Possibly via a trap-door (cf. [40]). like the spirits in Greene’s Alphonsus, Chapman’s Bussy d’Ambois and Jonson’s Catiline, and other plays, as held by Lawrence (Pre-Restoration Stage Studies, p. 140ff.) and Sprague (Shakespeare and the Actors, p. 128). This, though not perhaps in conflict with, is not supported by, the dialogue, which suggests movement across the stage [51, 126-7]. The second time it ’faded’ [156], but this word, like ’appears’ [392] and ’vanish’d [413] is used not during but after the event. But cf. [n. 776, where Jenkins does below the ghost descends via trap]. What the Ghost looks like is described at [60, 76, 77] and 1.2.200-2, 226-33 [391-3, 421-6] Its being in armour is repeatedly stressed.” Ed. note See also 124+3
1984 Klein
Klein: Wilson
51 Enter Ghost] Enter Ghost, in armour and bearing a marhals’s truncheon Klein (ed. 1984): “The expansion of the SD, inspired by Wilson, corresponds to what is said in lines [60, 76, etc.] It is important because this Ghost differs radically from its Seneca-inspired predecessors on the stage: no dervish-like phantom but a dignified man and general. As we learn from [426 etc.] his helmet’s visor is open; the face is clearly visible.”
1993 Lupton&Reinhard
Lupton & Reinhard ≈ Anders without attribution
51-2 Lupton & Reinhard (1993, p.99): “The Ghost is an almost embarrassing piece of Senecan machinery, which, in its ghostliness, is clearly marked as a creature foreign to the play and its atmosphere of witty skepticism. A similar foreignness infects such moments as Hamlet’s speech, ‘‘Tis now the very witching time of night . . . ’ [2259], the ‘O what a rogue and peasant slave am I’ soliloquy [1590], his appearance to Ophelia as a Senecan ghost, [quotes 979], and the scene of competitive mourning in the grave of Ophelia [3466] . In such scenes Hamlet borrows from the surrounding theatrical interchanges a language that does not suit him.”
1999 Dessen&Thomson
Dessen&Thomson
51 Enter Ghost] Dessen & Thomson(1999): SD ghost “found in a number of plays and linked to a variety of effects which help to confirm or augment its supernatural nature; . . . Henslowe’s inventory lists a ‘ghost’s suit’ and ‘ghosts’ bodies’ (Diary, App. 2, 37).” Ghosts often appear in their habit as they lived: see 2518.
2005 Shakespeare. Journal of the British Shakespeare Association
Holderness
52 looke where it comes again] Holderness (2005, p. 162): “The ghost is an apparition because it appears, but also because it only appears to be something: an ’image’ [TLN 98]; a ’figure like the king that’s dead’ [TLN 53]; a ’thing’ [TLN 30] that walks ’together’ with a ’form’ that only ’sometimes’ accompanied ’the majesty of buried Denmark’ [TLN 60-2].’ ”
2006 ard3q2
ard3q2: xref 76, 390-441; Foakes; Hapgood [see his essay in ’about Hamlet’ section on this site]; analogues Chapman, Jonson (adding dates and first names to ard2; ard2 on trap-door; Gurr and Ichikawa; modern productions
51 Thompson & Taylor (ed. 2006): “Modern productions usually make use of ’spectral’ lighting, music, and other ’special effects’ to enhance the appearances and disappearances of the Ghost (see Hapgood). It is possible that the Ghost originally ascended though a trapdoor, like the spirits in George Chapman’s Bussy d’Ambois (1604) and Ben Jonson’s Catiline (1611), but as Jenkins says, the dialogue suggests movement across the stage. Despite the arguments in favour of the trap advanced by Gurr and Ichikawa [2000, p. 126], the Ghost used one of the doors at the back of the stage at the London Globe in 2000.” Ed. note: No production, even at a Globe replica, is bound to follow original practice; its choice proves nothing except that there is always more than one way to accomplish any move in the play. See CN 65 on ghost’s exit and 76 on his armor.
11 51 52 53 54 60 76 391 421